Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 31st July 2025
DIVYA SOOD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv.
Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner -Divya Sood under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the orders dated 23rd December, 2023 and 30th December, 2023 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in respect of Financial Year 2017-18 (hereinafter, ‘impugned orders’).
3. Further, the present petition also challenges Notification No.9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023, (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’).
4. The validity of the impugned notification was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notification and accordingly, the following order was passed:
Court was to the legality, validity and propriety of the Notification No.13/2022 dated 5-7-2022 & Notification Nos.[9] and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023 & 8-12-2023 respectively.
2. However, in the present petition, we are concerned with Notification Nos.[9] & 56/2023 dated 31- 3-2023 respectively.
3. These Notifications have been issued in the purported exercise of power under Section 168 (A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (for short, the "GST Act").
4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5. The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing the Notifications in question under Section 168-A of the GST Act.
6. There are many other issues also arising for consideration in this matter.
7. Dr. Muralidhar pointed out that there is a cleavage of opinion amongst different High Courts of the country. 8. Issue notice on the SLP as also on the prayer for interim relief, returnable on 7-3-2025.”
7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pending before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writ petitions have been disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed therein. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
from giving our opinion with respect to the vires of Section 168-A of the Act as well as the notifications issued in purported exercise of power under Section 168- A of the Act which have been challenged, and we direct that all these present connected cases shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto shall be binding on these cases too.
67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim order passed in the present cases, would continue to operate and would be governed by the final adjudication by the Supreme Court on the issues in the aforesaid SLP-4240-2025.
68. In view of the aforesaid, all these connected cases are disposed of accordingly along with pending applications, if any.”
8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties for a substantial period today. A perusal of the above would show that various High Courts have taken a view and the matter is squarely now pending before the Supreme Court.
9. Apart from the challenge to the notifications itself, various counsels submit that even if the same are upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due to several reasons and were unable to avail of personal hearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases the adjudication orders are passed ex-parte. Huge demands have been raised and even penalties have been imposed.
10. Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage.
11. The said categories and proposed reliefs have been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025.”
5. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notification is under consideration before the Supreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions. Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observed that the validity of the impugned notification therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
6. On facts, however, the submission of Mr. Bhatia, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is a sole proprietress of the business that she is running, but her husband was managing the financial aspects of the same as he was a Chartered Accountant. Unfortunately, the husband of the Petitioner passed away on 11th April 2025. It is the submission on behalf of the Petitioner that she was not aware of the impugned orders and due to the ill health of the Petitioner’s husband, there has been a delay. Moreover, the Petitioner’s husband had filed two replies dated 8th November, 2023 to the two Show Cause Notices dated 28th September, 2023.
7. The Court has perused the matter. The replies were filed by the Petitioner’s husband way back in November 2023 and the impugned orders were passed in December 2023. Though there is a challenge to impugned notification, this is a fit case where the Petitioner ought to be relegated to the appellate remedy as the Petitioner was all along aware of the Show Cause Notices which have been issued.
8. Under these circumstances, it is directed that the Petitioner ought to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority by 31st August, 2025, along with the requisite pre-deposit.
9. The access to the portal shall be made available to the Petitioner within one week to download any documents which may be required. If the appeal is filed by 31st August, 2025, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits.
10. It is further made clear that the decision of the Appellate Authority shall be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE JULY 31, 2025 pd/ck